/lit/ - Literature

>>16392853
Seethe harder, fag

>>16392879
>Pynchon
>Glass of wine
>Friday night
Wew lad.

>>16392853
You have to go back >>>lgbt

>>16392853
>people
>voting
>perform
>society
>believe
>literal
>things
>family
>parents
>old
>representation
>reality
>right
>one
>wrong
>sameness
>going
>others

>>16392879
>>16392888
>nooooo don't ask questions I know I'm describing something silly but that's the point, Goderino made itself so silly and illogical to see how devoted someone would be to believe in such a silly and unfounded concept and that's a complete valid point to send someone to heaven or to eternal suffering. If you deny an unproven faith that contradicts itself all the time you obviously deserve to go to hell even if you are a good person lol who told you to not be born european or american? and yeah I know there are many denominations and that God could just show himself and show to everyone that he exists dictating all the rules you should follow and end with any doubt of paganism but he doesnt do that for faith and free will idk. hahaha loser btw God loves you just worship him to not go to hell okay? yeah its absolutely based to send pagans to hell and ignore all their life works. Did you saved 726737 kids from famine and poverty? nah you dont deserve to go to heaven, but that raper murderer that repented in his last year of life and spent his what remained being a slightly better person does yes xddddddddddddddddddddd reason 100

>>16392853
go read the early church fathers, all ur goofy issues have been answered for 2000 years.

>>16392950
you're so retarded you didn't even use the correct picture. that wojak is saying that me and the other guy are hyperintelligent, what you were going for is pic related.

Life doesn’t make sense. Get over it and just enjoy it.

>>16392973
Thanks kind stranger

Bro no one cares that you dont believe in anything.

>>16392950
I bear you no ill will, brother, and I’m sorry if representatives of the church or supposed Christians have given you a false idea of the teachings of Jesus or of the Gospel. “How many sheep without and how many wolves within,” as St. Augustine put it. The best argument against Christianity is certainly the Christians, myself very much included. I only ask that you give Christianity, in spite of its flaws, the same chance that I hope you’d give to other ideological movements and intellectual positions- a fair reading of its fundamental doctrines expressed by its most articulate and wisest theologians. That is, not to go the easy route of dismissing Christianity by only examining the poor arguments and hypocrisy that are all too evident in the church today. The critiques you’ve raised are not new, and Christians have responded to them in a variety of ways over the centuries, and perhaps their answers do not persuade you. I can not fault you for that. Still, I ask again that you give the Gospel a fair hearing- I recommend Bonhoeffer’s “Cost of Discipleship,” Augustine’s “Confessions,” St. John Chrysostom’s sermons, and the social writings of St. Basil the Great, Dorothy Day, and Pope Leo XII. C.S. Lewis is also an excellent choice for someone interested in a barebones summary of Christian doctrine. Again, these writers are fallible, and perhaps they were deluded, but they deserve at least a considerate reading.

Faith is not easy. All too often Christians, particularly on this board, seem interested only in dismissing criticism and glorying the worst aspects of our tradition. Please, if you would like specific answers to any of your questions and criticisms, know that I can provide some ideas drawn from the Church Fathers, Scripture, and our tradition, but I’m not a true theologian. I’ll do the best I can, but I really can only recommend you read those who have already tried their best to answer the objections you raise. Know that I will pray for you, and if you do not wish me to, at least know that I sincerely hope you come to some peace. It is my belief that “our hearts are restless till they find their rest in God,” but I may be mistaken. We are all of us only human, and we do the best we can.

>>16393013
Thanks for the education

Yeah I wish I was a christian man, I have read a couple of the authors you recommended when I was religious but I can't help it. At that point, it's the same for me to believe in faries or goblins. It would be really good to have a heaven and a God to watch for us.

Sadly, if the christian God exists, he is evil for making such a silly and sadistic game of pretty much luck. At least if he judged everyone by their acts I would find it mostly alright, but by the sheer chance of being born in a christian family? That's playing russian roullete with eternal suffering, and no teologist ever explained to me why that is not evil convincingly. You could say "oh he is omnipotent so he can do that and be good" (which is an argument used for 50% of christian theology), but then you would confirm every other religious belief out there that uses the same argument. I really wish there were a God man, I really did.

>>16393083
It's not an easy question to answer by any means, and I don't have a very satisfying answer. Some Christians (a minority throughout the history of the church, but always present) have been universalists. Since God desires all to be saved, and God is omnipotent, then all will eventually be reconciled to God. No one will be damned forever. Origen and perhaps Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa expressed this view in the early church, and plenty of modern theologians have agreed- Karl Barth and Karl Rahner, for example, both argued that even if we can't be sure all will be saved, it's our duty as Christians to hope for a universal reconciliation, and I quite agree with them.

Still, it's hard to read Jesus's own words in the Gospel and the majority of our tradition and not come away with a belief in Hell. I don't want to explain this away, since it's what I believe and what the mainstream of Christianity has always taught, but I don't think it's as simple as what you suggest- that salvation is just based on whether we're lucky enough to be born into a Christian family or Christian country. That seems to be a Protestant sort of idea (I don't want to get into the differences between the Christian churches, but it's relevant here), that salvation is a matter of having the right faith, of believing in the right God; that being a good person doesn't matter, that it's better to be a Christian who does vile things than, say, a Hindu who works tirelessly for justice. Salvation in Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican/high Lutheran thought is a process of both faith and works- the "Christian" who claims to believe in Jesus but ignores the poor, cheats on his wife, etc isn't really a Christian at all, and (perhaps) the Hindu who has never heard of Christ yet follows His teachings might well be a Christian in a deeper sense (what Rahner calls "anonymous Christians"). Christianity is fundamentally about free will- this is what so shocked and intrigued the Roman world, where belief in Fate or chance was basically a given across most philosophies. Christianity suggests that we all have a choice, between light and dark, between good and evil, between God and the dark powers of this world; "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable" (Phil 4:8) is ultimately from God, there is no other source of goodness.

>>16393184
The practical problem is hard too- how is someone to find faith in God? Even if you want to believe, you're right that you can't just will faith into existence. I can only recommend going to church, reading Scripture, and, if you're baptized, taking the sacraments, and trying to do good works through volunteering, etc. These are the ways (not the only ways, but some certain ones) through which God gives his grace to people which helps us to trust in him, overcome sin, and do good things. Pascal talks about this- we need to put ourselves in a position to receive the love of God, even if our intellectual doubts and personal objections aren't fully satisfied (mine aren't either). It's a bit like falling in love: if I never let myself get close to a woman, never spend time with her, because I fear that it may end in sorrow, then I do safeguard against heartbreak, but at the cost of never experiencing love. Committing to God requires a step outside all our comfort zones (Kierkegaard's leap of faith, perhaps), but, at least in my own experience, once we take the first step, God will supply the rest.

All the intellectual argumentation in the world can't really answer the deepest questions we have about God and His justice, though these arguments have their place. Christianity doesn't, in the end, answer the problem of evil with a precise doctrine but with a single insane idea- that God himself became a human being and experienced physical and spiritual suffering equal to anything we will undergo. Christ's death shows us that death and suffering are not the final word, that God does triumph over the powers of evil, that He does care for the least among us. It's not the kind of thing that we can articulate in words, exactly, but it shows something of the love He has for creation, even if we can't (if we're being honest) answer every objection now.

>>16392853

Strawman harder. I used to think like you until I actually had a conversation with a religious person and listened instead of projecting my expectations on them. You're not as smart as you think, not even close.

>>16392853
>>People who are able to vote
I agree, this is terrible and shouldn’t be allowed

>>16393222
Based and checked

Everyone believes in something stupid and unsubstantiated; Those who didnt have killed themselves.

>>16393222
Based.

>>16392893
>frog

>>16393200
>>16393184
Thanks for the answers

If the universalists are right, then I could agree with you that a God in those circumstances would be completely fine. No one then would really need religion at that point and would only need to be a good person overall, thing I believe every human being is capable of with enough dedication. Then, faith in the christian God would only be needed to follow the moral principles God gave us, and such concepts can be found in yourself without the need of faith, making religion only a simpler way to achieve it.

In that way, I'm completely fine with the fact that a God existing in the universalist realm is mostly good, but it wouldn't make much of a difference in my life then. It would only answer a contradiction inside a deep flawed belief, in which you can't really make any logical statements without assuming first it's real through subjective experience.

I believe people keep faith in God because his moral system is good 95% of the time (things like homophobia and woman submission still don't really get through my mind, together with the Old Testament as a concept), which gives you forces to win against addiction, loniness, lost of someone you loved and even get into a community. Just that can be "proof" God exists for them and that He changed them, and I don't judge that, if I were in the place of someone really fucked who got his life turned around by joining the church, I would believe too and be always glad that I had that chance. In that way, I really love faith and the church, but that happens pretty much in every religion as well. Turning lifes around isn't exclusive of christianity, but shared by almost every religion because of all that sense of company and motivation divinity gives, the set book of rules that gives you an accurate moral compass, and that's honestly beautiful.

I still can't believe in it, I lost my faith a couple years ago and, besides being greatful of everything it gave me, I think it's time to go. I have been the same man that I was before being religious, mostly same morals and principles, as happy as well, and I know that if I followed any religion out there besides catholicism, I would have the same outcome.

>>16393083
>If God judged everyone by their acts it would be better
I thought about this and I came to the conclusion that if God judged people according to their actions, we're all going to hell anyway. The Bible is right that mankind utterly evil. Why would God rescue anyone for merely doing the right thing by other humans? Therefore I believe that faith is actually the most optimistic. True, those who are not born in a Christian country will probably die unsaved, or have a greater chance of doing so, but even in Christian countries it's extremely likely that few people have a kind of faith that God finds acceptable. Some is better than none in other words.

Maybe such a God is evil according to human standards, but what is esteemed by mankind is detestable to God (Luke 16:15). Therefore, I think you just "got filtered" as they say around here. I genuinely hope you change your mind, but if it's God's heaven, then it's God's rules. Just like how Hobbes says that under the state it's the state's rules. (pic related)

Even Hobbes is deeply optimistic in the same way I find; since the Hobbesian state does not exist to judge people's moral worth on the basis of their actions, but to execute a sentence on the basis of the state's laws. Morality is actually a grubby, dirty, unpleasant thing when you think about all the conflicting opinions of the busybodies who gate-keep society's morality and all the severity with which people condemn one another. The reason I love God therefore, is the reason why I am also a statist. I prefer arbitrariness to a hateful thing like morality.

>>16393405
>I thought about this and I came to the conclusion that if God judged people according to their actions, we're all going to hell anyway.

>Maybe such a God is evil according to human standards, but what is esteemed by mankind is detestable to God (Luke 16:15). Therefore, I think you just "got filtered" as they say around here. I genuinely hope you change your mind, but if it's God's heaven, then it's God's rules. Just like how Hobbes says that under the state it's the state's rules. (pic related)

Well, if there is a God there and he is evil, I don't want to believe in him. He is an evil God by human definitions, and you only think he is right because he told you so. It looks much more of an excuse to justify that God can be evil rather than a response, it's quite literally saying "he is good because he said so despise his actions".

If I believed in that, pagan religions would only make more sense than it, and all bad acts of the church and abrahamic religions would be justified.

>>16393468
Consider the situation with the government; you may think that a law, war, policy or any thing that your government does is morally evil. And you didn't sign a social contract, so you figure that you shouldn't have to accept what your government does or expects you to do. But that is wrong, obviously. You may think it's right, but if you stop paying your taxes in protest, or dodge the draft the government is justified in jailing you until you do as they say. It's the government's rules, they don't have to be moral rules.

Similarly, God can ask that you simply believe in him, and exclude from heaven anyone who does not. God is the king of heaven, it is therefore his government, therefore it is his rules. I really don't know what to tell you, except that you may have a problem with authority.

But authority in this manner is better than morality since morality is just relative from person to person. Authority may be arbitrary, but at least it is not relative.

>>16393468
>All bad acts of the church and abrahamic religions would be justified
If there is no God or one disconnected from human affairs, then morality is relative, in which case all bad actions are neither justified nor unjustified. The situation only gets better if you suggest that the actions were wrong according to the religion in question or according to God.

>>16392853
>although are religions are totally the same

>>16393587
>think that a law, war, policy or any thing that your government does is morally evil. And you didn't sign a social contract, so you figure that you shouldn't have to accept what your government does or expects you to do. But that is wrong, obviously. You may think it's right, but if you stop paying your taxes in protest, or dodge the draft the government is justified in jailing you until you do as they say. It's the government's rules, they don't have to be moral rules.

>Govt doing immoral rules
>Protest

It's all right for me, govt stays immoral and I'm still in the right. You are just telling me God can be evil with euphemisms.

>But authority in this manner is better than morality since morality is just relative from person to person. Authority may be arbitrary, but at least it is not relative.

At least if God was clear and objectively showed himself to people, I would be more inclined to believe in that, but at the present moment it's just sheer luck. It's like having a government who only tells you something is wrong after you commit the crime.

>If there is no God or one disconnected from human affairs, then morality is relative, in which case all bad actions are neither justified nor unjustified. The situation only gets better if you suggest that the actions were wrong according to the religion in question or according to God

I would rather develop my own moralitu than following the Christian morality who has thousands of denominations and changes every couple decades. Christian morality is as subjective as regular morality. And again, I think Christian morality is generally good and brings meaning and better quality of life to millions of people, just happens it can be achieved outside of it. You can easily denote morality from "hurting other people if they didn't hurt you = bad" simply because most people are benefited from it. You can think hunger and poverty is uncomfortable and donate to charity or do voluntary work. It's a no brainer honestly, and following such simple concepts objectively make the world a better place. It's all relative, but all of them make people generally happier and live more peacefully, which might not be your objective but it's mine.

>>16393587
I'm not sure how you sleep soundly at night with this idea, since for all you know such an arbitrary tyrannical god could choose to torture you for eternity anyway just for shits and gigggles. It seems like an absolute massive cope that you're just saying to try to make him happy.

>>16393222
based

>>16392853
always thought the same. and we always have the 'you will be punished for doing evil things' while evil ia entirely subjective, omnipotent omnipresent omnicapable god that by the way, cant carry all three traits etc..

i think there might have been some paranormal god shit going around when we finally evolved from monkeys to men, and then different societies wrote different accounts of these events and here we are. not that you should fully believe this too, since we have no proof of any god related theories.

>>16394088
>>16394196
I sleep completely soundly at night, I've merely given up your pretense that I have morals that are independent of the state and the church. Nobody should think such an idle and obviously false lie about themselves, that they have some inner moral strength that gives them the right to contest the revealed truth! What a laughable concept, a product of liberal indoctrination to be sure.

>>16392853
This reeks of butt erfly

>>16393666
Based shaytan trying to turn others away from the divine path

>>16393222
vase

How can god exist when im taking a giant fucking dump right this second

>>16392853
>e who are able to vote, drive and perform important tasks in society believe in religious things literally because they were born somewhere to a religious family and told by their parents that a 2000 year old book is an accurrate representation of reality.
t. perpetuates the dogma of jewish men in white labcoats
>>Their 2000 year old book is the right one, by the way, and any other 2000 year old books are wrong.
Depends on their values.
>>Their religion is the right one by the way, although are religions are totally the same, but if you're not their religion you'll go to hell, but theirs is the right one.
Objectively false.

>>16395906
What ticked you off, the 50s style womanly eyes or the vapid anti-intellectualism?